In the original novel, the Thing looked like a creature with three red eyes, blue flesh, four tentacle-like arms and a bunch of appendages on its head, which hated and absorbed entire races under threat of extinction. In the film, it is just a biomass that does not have true form.
The Thing reminds me of a Demon of Tzeech from 40k. they turn into tentacle monsters with teeth at a moments notice, are scheming and make complex plans and are super intelligent, like building spaceships kind of intelligent .
There is also a The Thing video game that game out on the PS2 and Xbox that started right after the Carpenter movie, that way different then the comics of this video. Mabey a thing to look in too π
I hate the comics. They missed the entire point. If the thing were to ever make it to the ocean, the world is doomed. There would be no stopping. Why would it bother to focus on attacking humans at that point? simply assimilate all the life that it can in the oceans. Then the resistance of individual humans against pieces of itself would be completely pointless. You've lost. A more intelligent comic follow-up would have been a rescue party finding maccready, perhaps, and becoming convinced of what McCready was telling them. Then getting a hold of the president of the United States one way or another and the president informing China and Russia that the United States was going to start hitting a particular area in Antarctica with nuclear weapons and would keep hitting that place until it is bombed down to bare rock and glowing. And invite China and Russia to do the same. Simply informed them that a world ending infection has been discovered in that area and that this must become a permanent no-go Zone and that every effort would be made to sterilize everything for hundreds of miles in any direction.
I wouldn't the ending of the prequel is even close to as ambiguous the first movies ending. But it was still a good movie, and could have been much better if the Studio just left it alone. Are those comics actually canon to the movie? Cause there is a game that suppose to be a direct sequel and had Mac as the Thing with Childs left frozen too death. I use to think Childs was the Thing, and he could be but I'm thinking it was actually Mac.
To me "The Thing" is a disease, it has to adapt to the life forms around it attack them then replicate into them. The only way for it to survive is to blend in and give it's victims a false sense of security.
They have never made a version that is true to the actual novella character-wise or plot-wise in many ways. Mac in the movie is nothing like the Mac in the book.
Lets all give a round of applause for this narrator not pronouncing MacReady as Mac-Reddy. Although I'm 50/50 that's it's an AI, which only makes the last reader's mispronunciation worse.
A while back, I saw an Outer Limits episode that had a creature that strongly resembled The Thing, in abilities and assimilation. I believe the episode was called If these walls could talk, S1 E7. There was an extra ability it had, which was it could assimilate inorganic matter such as rubber, wood, plastic and possibly metal. It couldn't assimilate glass for some reason. Naturally, it preferred living organisms, which it would add to its mass. These organisms were not allowed the peace of death after assimilation as their bodies could manifest inside the house at will, to trick others into being assimilated. Another unusual weakness it had was it was sensitive to drinking alcohol. I wonder if that episode was influenced by The Thing.
As a long time horror fan I was embarrassed that I saw the remake first, but; honestly; both are super fun science fiction films and worth multiple watches. Rare for me to enjoy both versions, but this was an awesome exception.
Thanks for the additional lore. Itβs always cool to learn about the deep amount of thought and planning that goes into filmsβ concept, that we donβt always get to see.
I'm sorry unless they go with practical effects like the original I don't think the CG will bring out the violence and the horror that we have come to respect of the John Carpenter's 1982 version. Now if they use a little bit of CGI to enhance some of the areas I can live with that but it's got to be limited.
Fun fact for The Thing 2009. They director wanted mostly anamatronic and practical effects used in the movie to pay homage to the original movie, they even went into production with some of these models built and ready to go. However the studio thought it was too costly and time consuming to film so they basically forced the director to use mostly CG.
First vid I watched in 2023 π
HAPPY NEW YEAR ππ₯³πππ
2023
In the original novel, the Thing looked like a creature with three red eyes, blue flesh, four tentacle-like arms and a bunch of appendages on its head, which hated and absorbed entire races under threat of extinction. In the film, it is just a biomass that does not have true form.
Anything and everything
+Vikings = 1000%
Gooder π
The Thing reminds me of a Demon of Tzeech from 40k. they turn into tentacle monsters with teeth at a moments notice, are scheming and make complex plans and are super intelligent, like building spaceships kind of intelligent .
There is also a The Thing video game that game out on the PS2 and Xbox that started right after the Carpenter movie, that way different then the comics of this video. Mabey a thing to look in too π
I hate the comics. They missed the entire point. If the thing were to ever make it to the ocean, the world is doomed. There would be no stopping. Why would it bother to focus on attacking humans at that point? simply assimilate all the life that it can in the oceans. Then the resistance of individual humans against pieces of itself would be completely pointless. You've lost. A more intelligent comic follow-up would have been a rescue party finding maccready, perhaps, and becoming convinced of what McCready was telling them. Then getting a hold of the president of the United States one way or another and the president informing China and Russia that the United States was going to start hitting a particular area in Antarctica with nuclear weapons and would keep hitting that place until it is bombed down to bare rock and glowing. And invite China and Russia to do the same. Simply informed them that a world ending infection has been discovered in that area and that this must become a permanent no-go Zone and that every effort would be made to sterilize everything for hundreds of miles in any direction.
I almost π forgot I watched the thing
I was the 100th like
is calling that icy volcanic wasteland Greenland , the first recorded case of mass PR spin in history ?
Wrong. This video has missed hundreds of other "Thing" appearances in media. Many of which are much better than the non-Carpenter movie and comics.
I wonder if it's a single thing or a colony of things. It could also be a super bio weapon to destroy all life on earth.
I wouldn't the ending of the prequel is even close to as ambiguous the first movies ending. But it was still a good movie, and could have been much better if the Studio just left it alone. Are those comics actually canon to the movie? Cause there is a game that suppose to be a direct sequel and had Mac as the Thing with Childs left frozen too death. I use to think Childs was the Thing, and he could be but I'm thinking it was actually Mac.
To me "The Thing" is a disease, it has to adapt to the life forms around it attack them then replicate into them. The only way for it to survive is to blend in and give it's victims a false sense of security.
Legit i found the comic before the movie, it blew my mind that there was a movie that messed up.
Wish they made a sequel to the Kurt Russell version the closest we got was the game…
Either way if it was shipped to mainland instead of Norwegian touching it…earth would have been taken over…
The comic of it being around since age of Vikings wondered how it got to earth prior
I thought part 3 was the PS2 game…
They have never made a version that is true to the actual novella character-wise or plot-wise in many ways. Mac in the movie is nothing like the Mac in the book.
The original version by John Carpenter is by far the best.
Lets all give a round of applause for this narrator not pronouncing MacReady as Mac-Reddy. Although I'm 50/50 that's it's an AI, which only makes the last reader's mispronunciation worse.
I have a theory—
I think the "THING"
Is actually Christ—-
Upword crouping back to Yahweh!!
Maybe
A while back, I saw an Outer Limits episode that had a creature that strongly resembled The Thing, in abilities and assimilation. I believe the episode was called If these walls could talk, S1 E7. There was an extra ability it had, which was it could assimilate inorganic matter such as rubber, wood, plastic and possibly metal. It couldn't assimilate glass for some reason. Naturally, it preferred living organisms, which it would add to its mass. These organisms were not allowed the peace of death after assimilation as their bodies could manifest inside the house at will, to trick others into being assimilated. Another unusual weakness it had was it was sensitive to drinking alcohol. I wonder if that episode was influenced by The Thing.
As a long time horror fan I was embarrassed that I saw the remake first, but; honestly; both are super fun science fiction films and worth multiple watches. Rare for me to enjoy both versions, but this was an awesome exception.
Thanks for the additional lore. Itβs always cool to learn about the deep amount of thought and planning that goes into filmsβ concept, that we donβt always get to see.
I'm sorry unless they go with practical effects like the original I don't think the CG will bring out the violence and the horror that we have come to respect of the John Carpenter's 1982 version. Now if they use a little bit of CGI to enhance some of the areas I can live with that but it's got to be limited.
Fun fact for The Thing 2009. They director wanted mostly anamatronic and practical effects used in the movie to pay homage to the original movie, they even went into production with some of these models built and ready to go. However the studio thought it was too costly and time consuming to film so they basically forced the director to use mostly CG.